Top 10 Arguments That Can’t Be Won
Since the time of fire, man has had arguments – rare or well done? Of course, arguments depend on your point of view, or in the case of husbands and wives, what the wife thinks. Some arguments are never-ending. Over the centuries, there have been some doozies that have kept philosophy students and teachers debating.
To be included on this list of Arguments That Can’t Be Won, the argument must have no clear answer that cannot be countered with another opposing view.
Disclaimer: TopTenz.net is in no way trying to lead you to think in one way or another. We are only trying to present the arguments in a meaningful context.
Evolution or Creation?
Theologists and scientists have been arguing this one for centuries as well. The argument goes back to the time when organized religion was almost as powerful as the monarchies ruling countries. When people starting postulating that the Earth was not the center of the universe, it gave way to the rise in questioning the idea of a seven-day creation and God’s role in creating the Earth. Enter Darwin and his Theory of Evolution and the debate truly kicks off with an unholy fevered pitch. Add in that there are many stories of creation across many different religions and your brain can really start to hurt.
Nature vs. Nurture
Does how you are raised affect your views as an adult more than what your genetic codes dictate? If your family has always been carpenters, are you destined to be a carpenter because of your genes or because of your familial upbringing? When identical twins are separated at birth and grow up to have identical tastes is that an argument that it has more to do with nature than nurture? However, is it nature to love spicy food, when that’s all that your family and friends eat?
Gun control
It’s not guns that kill people, it’s the bullets. In America, citizens have a right to bear arms, which has proven to be dangerous for many other citizens and police over the centuries since the country’s birth. On the other hand, large portions of the gun-toting population are careful citizens who have never crossed the law. Why should one group’s rights to bear arms be stripped away because another group feels unsafe? Or why should they be allowed to bear those weapons of death among a land of peaceful citizens?
Euthanasia
Dr. Kevorkian helped many people commit suicide due to their health conditions and their desires. His motives were questioned because all life is supposedly precious, but his patients wanted to move on from their frail existence. What if those patients didn’t have a say and we had the opportunity to choose whether they live in agony or die in peace by not giving them medication or a procedure? What is the better option?
The Death Penalty
Centuries ago, the prevalent rule of thumb was an eye for an eye, or in some cases, a life for a life. So the question becomes have we advanced far enough in our social and political structures to ban the death penalty? Or when is the death penalty justifiable? Is the death penalty appropriate for an accidental homicide? How about for a mass murderer?
Abortion or Pro-life?
Does a woman have the right to control her body by ending a life inside her? When is a fetus truly alive? Is all life truly precious? What happens when a woman is raped and becomes pregnant – is that life still precious? There may never be answers to these questions; however, the government has helped us out many times by entering its own opinion whether the pro-lifers like it or not.
Free will or Destiny?
The free will or destiny argument stems back to the Christian doctrine that God is omniscient and has seen everything that will happen. So if God can see everything that happens, is it free will or destiny that makes you choose to continue reading? Some have argued that God knows you will read this but you still have a choice. However, if the path is already apparent to one being, then the path has already been decided for you. However, that directly contradicts our everyday actions where we constantly make decisions – is something, a destiny foreseen by God, guiding us or are we truly free of the strictures of destiny?
Morals – Relative or Universal?
Like the question of gun control, whether ethics being morally relative or universal comes down to whether the good of the one outweighs the good of the many. If it is fine to sleep with another man’s wife in one society but not in another, then the problem is that the morals are relative to the society or person. But why wouldn’t it be universal that it is wrong to sleep with another man’s wife or woman’s husband in any society? Why is it OK to speed, when it is breaking the law? Shouldn’t breaking any law be just as wrong? If you would never steal a person’s purse, why would you pirate a DVD?
The chicken or the egg?
Perhaps one of the most fun arguments on this list, the chicken or the egg debate has raged for centuries mainly because it asks the questions does the animal evolve and then reproduce or was it hatched? That debate can then be transferred to our own existence, which leads into the argument of Evolution or Creation.
Does God Exist?
Since the dawn of recorded time, there have been people trying to prove that there is a higher being or beings that have caused the worlds and its creation. Organized religion comes down to having faith that there is a higher being and a place to go after death. Most people, if not already deeply religious in their life, find religion and start believing as they near their twilight years because they want to believe there is somewhere to go and someone to be with. So the question is how do you prove that god, in which ever religion you believe, exists?
Related Top 10 Lists
A well thought out list.
I’m surprised you haven’t got any raging arguments down here. Half of those are such hot topics they would spark a forest fire in the North Pole.
Oh well. What came first, ‘omg fake’ or ‘woohoo first’?
I think “woohoo first” had to lead off … I mean you can’t fake something that you had no idea existed
Okay my turn … Chicken or the egg?
So, “omg fake” might have been first and then slowly evolved “woohoo first”. Often we use technology to get what’s beyond current human body design. another e.g. science fiction is based on what’s out there, but its not what out there.
Abortion is a good one. Good god, people will NEVER agree on abortion.
As for the chicken and egg, if you accept some degree of evolution then the egg came first. This owes to the fact that most genetic variation between generations occurs in the gamete (egg/sperm) stage. Therefore the egg hatched a chicken, but was not laid by a chicken….just something extremely like a chicken that probably still tasted good.
There are other arguments that are obviously not top 10 worthy, but they are still pretty controversial…
Gay Marriage?
YooHoo’s or Chocolate milk?
Snickers or Milky Way?
Meat or Veggies?
McDonald’s or Burger King?
…and the list goes on…
Cloning ban’s
Robot regulations
Missionary vs Doggy
Does this make me look fat vs are you lying to me?
New Coke vs Classic Coke
Freedom/Liberty vs Safety
Who’s hotter — Ginger or Mary Ann
It’s the thought that counts vs big pre$ent$
Size matters vs Knowing How to Use It
There’s just so many to choose from!
A timeless question that gets little attention today…
Live ones life in duty to yourself or to a higher cause? A subject in service to the king, a soldier in service to the country, a matyr in service to the cause, a clergy in service to the gods. To them, the man in service to himself is a selfish and self-rationalising fool. To him, they are fools, duped into towing the line for another at their own expense.
True, in this life none of these will be settled with complete agreement.
The only place I would disagree with how you assess these, is the last-It haas been my experience, (as a pastor), that the longer a person goes in life without some kind of faith, the less likely they are to gain any in their “twilight years”. Certainly they think of death more, but after a life of self-reliance, they extremely rarely turn to any faith during that time.
Evolution vs. Creation never was an issue.
Evolution is a proven fact, period.
Also, Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive.
Microevolution is fact; macroevolutionism is religion masquerading as science.
Also, god can’t be proven because he probably doesn’t exist.
Fox: you said the magic word! PROBABLY.
and also, evolution is just a theory. that’s why it’s called the ‘theory’ of evolution.
and by the way ‘ojay’ u are SO right! hahaha.
“Just a theory”…Anyone that says that hasn’t truly looked into the mountain of evidence. There used to be a theory called the “theory of gravity” too which many people at the time didn’t accept. Hold a brick above your head and let go. As the blood runs down your face tell yourself it is “just a theory”.
Oh no, the ‘it’s JUST a theory’, thing again.
A THEORY IS A THEORY IS A THEORY. The THEORY of gravity. Get over it.
A scientific ‘theory’ is not the same as a ‘theory’ in English class. People need to be educated about this.
By the way, person above, you remind me of my Biology teacher. He is an awesome man. It is a compliment.
Evolution is not a proven fact. It is just a theory still. There has not been any research or experiments to prove or disprove Evolution or Creationism. This is mostly because of the immense amount of time, money, and rescources it would take. But I do agree that the 2 theories are not mutually exclusive, although most creationists believe they are. God cannot be proven until atleast the rapture, if/when that happens. Otherwise there is no way to prove God exists, and religious people will not just agree that God does not exist. Chicken or the Egg is strongly tied to beliefs. It is quite obvious that the egg came first, as it has been proven that dinosaurs lived on the earth way before chickens, and it has also been proven that dinosaurs did lay eggs. Religious Zealots however, are more likely to believe the chicken came first as it is said in the Bible that God created all the animals, not their eggs.
“It is just a theory still.”
this word, “theory”, it does not mean what you think it means.
Evolution is a fact. It has been proven with experimental data and objective verifiable observations. To explain why it’s called the “Theory of Evolution,” please realize that scientific theory is entirely different than the layman’s definition. Towit, scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions.
There have been many, many experiments proving evolution. You can start with Gregor Mendel’s study of inheritance of traits and move forward through Morgan’s study of fruit fly mutations to today’s work with DNA and individual genes.
The chicken and egg debate is not subject to any belief system. Eggs came first, in the sense that egg-laying animals existed before chickens and in the sense that genetic variation occurs during development. I think even a hardcore creationist can agree to that. Genetic mutations don’t occur during adulthood. A 30-year-old man doesn’t just wake up an albino.
However, I agree that creationism and evolutionism aren’t mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, too many people are unwilling to have open minds and discourse regarding some topics.
Yeah, it’s just a theory.
Just like gravity.
Windows / Mac / Linux
Evolution HAS NOT been proven and never will be. Evolution is a theory just as creation is a theory (Christians back off, I believe in intelligent design). There is no physical way to prove evolution right now. In thousands of years when the human race and other species have possibly evolved into something else, then evolution might be proven. Until then, don’t get your panties in bunches…
Enjoy!
God has been less proven then evolution.
Examples of natural speciation (the formation of new species through evolutionary processes):
Komodo Monitors
Fiji Banded Iguanas
Darwin’s 13-14 species of Galapagos finches
the Scarlet Robin and Pacific Robin of Australia
The London Underground mosquito
the melanistic Jaguar
Newly evolved “super-worms” (National Geographic, Oct. 7, 2008)
There is no knotted underwear here, but to say evolution is not proven is a completely false statement. All one needs is an open mind to the evidence.
My mind is open to evidence of creationism/intelligent design. I’m just waiting for something that holds up to the scientific method.
Before an all out flamewar starts on Evolution vs. Creationism, we need to define what we mean by Evolution in this context. Evolution in the terms of stronger genes surviving over weaker genes and being passed on is one thing. The theory that we evolved from monkeys is another. I agree with the former but not the latter.
Evolution vs. Creationism is the argument of the latter vs. intelligent design.
HAHAHA!
you’ve all come and visited a site about 10 arguments that cannot be won, yet you all bothering to argue about them anyway!
silly silly people!
oh but to the ‘biologist’ YES there is proof for evolution! what are you talking about?
the theory was built on evidence. darwin devised the idea BECAUSE he found evidence. and of course there is proof made via plants. i cannot remember the guy who did it. was done AGES ago… he was a christian. well. a monk. and he proved evolution via hundreds of generations of plant growth.
so there!
ok. so now i see why you all argued over these things too…
Mendel’s hybridization experiments were a case of “guided evolution”, sometimes known as “intelligent design”.
Well I know the answer to one. Did the chicken or the egg come first? Well eggs have been around since dinosaurs, and chickens haven’t
Evolution,Nurture, gun controll,no uthinasia, no death penalty,obortion should be the mothers choice,free will,relitave morals,egg,god doesn’t ezist grow up people!!!!!!!!!!!!!
learn to spell its exist not ezist
Evolution, [no good evidence], gun control, euthanasia, death penalty, abortion via mother’s choice, free will, morals don’t exist, egg, no god
Just goes to show you will never get an agreement. How I wish I could…
I like chicken nuggets.
There are two answers to the chicken and the egg – a logical one and a wiseass one.
Logical – The egg came first. There were dinosaur eggs long before there were chickens. No one said the egg in question had to be a chicken egg.
Wiseass – The chicken came first. The chicken had to get laid before the egg could.
Hahaha…
How did the first plant support itself without a cell wall?
It obviously didn’t without a complex designer… Osmosis membrane would have let too much of a concentration of water molecules inside the cell. The cell would have burst.
i agree i like the way you think have you ever watched kent hovind he is the best debaiter ever
evidence for evolution: thousands of years of conclusive studies
evidence of the existence of God (or Jesus): nowhere
Argument solved!
I’ve noticed that this list seems to consist of items and descriptions that are focused towards a Christian American audience.
Eg. Free Will or Destiny is not a debate about whether God has seen or decided the fate of man, but rather if existence and time have a set and predetermined path versus the capability of a sentient being in changing the course of existence in time with its decision through actions.
I believe that the author could have come up with a less biased list. If we use the ideas from “Morals – Relative or Universal” we would understand that in some societies, these questions do not even come into question because the answers to them are straight forward, one sided, and undebateable. (I think that’s how you spell it…)
FB
The interesting thing here is not whether or not there is an answer to each of these questions, but whether or not the argument can be won. Discounting weird “the universe was created 5,000 years ago with all of the objective evidence of a 12 billion years old universe already in place” kinds of discussions, the evolution debate was over long ago. But that doesn’t mean the argument is over, because the nay sayers have a vested interest in the outcome. The nature vs. nurture debate is decidable, but is really a false dichotomy, since the real answer is nature and nurture. Gun control also has an objective answer, but it is difficult to find, and again the proponents on both sides have a vested interest. The chicken or egg problem is a semantic argument only, and the rest have large subjective components that really preclude an objective answer.
Evolution happened. Animal species have evolved over the centuries through adaptation and such.
I think that life was put down here first by God or whatever you believe and then different things evolved into what they are today.
Life had to evolve from other life. It can’t just spontaneously generate. The very first life was put down here by someone or something. Humans definatly cannot have evolved from rocks or space.
this might not get anywhere but really, email me if you want to know more or be saved or whatever.
@Gwendolyn: Evolution and adaptation are different things. Evolution is the idea that beings change based on mutations. Evolution is supposed to make something more advanced right? No mutation in history has added genetic information, therefore we must be less advanced than bacteria.
also@Gwendolyn: If you don’t believe in spontaneous generation, how did the first “cells” appear on earth? No one has made a cell out of the conditions believed to have been billions of years ago. Some scientists have made amino acids, but that is not a cell. In addition, those are just assumed conditions, not facts. Also, God created the first beings with his almighty power. If He can do anything except sin, I am sure that He can create life. We didn’t evolve from rocks or space.
@verinon: We may not be able to “prove” to you that God is real so that you believe it, however we can definitely disprove evolution.
@8rustystaples: Gregor Mendel proved that traits could be passed down through parents… This can prove adaptation, but not evolution. How could two parents create something totally different from what they had?
also@8rustystaples: The chicken and the egg debate is, in fact, related to beliefs. If you are an evolutionist, you would most likely believe that the egg came first. Most Christians belive the chicken came first. This is because God created the chicken, not the egg. All of the animals were already “hatched” so to speak.
@Tom S Fox: What do you mean Christianity vs. evolution was never an issue…?
[Question from me: Why are humans so overly dominant over the earth?] If you can give a logical answer please respond.
@Fuzzy Bunny: Good try; undebatable. ;]
Humans have the ability to reason. No other species has that ability. This gives humans the RESPONSIBILITY to dominate all other species.
We are failing in that responsibility: e.g. global warming, failure to ensure that all species have the opportunity to live in a non-polluted environment (the mosquito comes to mind) cloning.
Feel free to add to the list.
I have the answer to all of the above. Life is precious because we all die, and worth living because we do not know when. Period!
All I am going to say is Y-5 cluster…….
Since my statement from last night, when i implemented that all of the above “persons” were “morons” has been removed, I find it nessecary to add a comment that is more constructive, and not anonymous.
I do not mean that you are infact dumber or less capable of making judgements than me or any other person what so ever. But the fact that this top-ten list is about arguments that “we cannot win”, it seems meaningless for anyone to start a discution on one of the subjects that the list obviusly states as “undebatable”.
And to all of you stating that “The theory of evolution” is scientificly proven, you are all very wrong. The fact that something is called a “theory” and not a “fact” should make all people with any sence of what either of these two terms mean, understand that it is not proven.
The debate someone could start here is what Fuzzy Bunny breifly touched when adressing the arguments whether morals are relative or universal. What are your moral standards, and where do they come from? Why are your moral standards more “true” than those of someone from a different culture than your own?
The chicken came first!! How else would the egg just magically take care of itself? Wherever the chicken came from…. it was first. An egg can’t hatch itself, nor take care of itself once its hatched. Half these arguments ARE winnable for the record..
Your argument is invalid. Sea turtles deposit their eggs in a hole they dig in the sand on the beach, the female leaves , and the eggs hatch. The eggs and fledgling turtles are on their own from the time the adult turtle leaves
To Wow`s question: Why are humans so overly dominant over the earth?
Because we(homo sapiens) are the only thinking animal(as far as we know) with the ability to reason. We are allso the only animals on planet earth with self-awareness and ability to compare ourself against other animals.
Our intelligence has allowed us to develop tools and weapons, which made us the “superior” race of animals on this planet.
We also have the power of language, and therefor communication on higher level then any other living being on this planet.
If i were to start writing about all that has happen in the last 150 years and throughout the industrial revolution, this post would never stop. But in any case, this “proves” that humans have a “grip” on this earth, like no other living creature we know of.
This is a “logical” explanation, unless of course you are a religious fanatic.
This is really sorta funny, you all come to this page “Ten Arguments That Can’t Be Won” and what do you all do start arguing about them. There is absolutely nothing that you can say that someone won’t disagree with you on here. Everyone should save their own opinions and ask themselves why their so bull headed.
The egg came first, why? Because inside that egg is about 4.3 BILLION years of evolution to make that 1 cell organism surrounded by cytoplasm and a tough outer shell. Now how can something that makes a carbon copy of itself evolve? Different conditions, that’s all. Considering all life we know of is carbon based and carbon has only 6 electrons, it will most likely chemically bond with something to create a new compound and under the right conditions, will change the attributes of a cell. Since there are more unicellular organisms than humans, we can assume that this phenomenon happens a lot. Since it happens a lot, we can also assume that the changes can can through the same method via the transitive property. This eventually leads to many variations of one’s genes since they are made up of different compounds. This is what is known as a cascade effect. Now that we have gotten that out of the way, let’s move on as a species and advance further than we are now.
well, as a muslim. I believe that God (Allah) is exist and He created all things.if u want to know more, why don’t u listen to a few lecture by dr zakir naik. so much proofs to be keep inside ur brain.
On the Galapagos island the strong turtles are eaten first (as they are the strongest to break out of their shells) and then the weak ones are the turtles that make it to the sea when the predators are full. In other words the weak survive the strong get eaton.
In the amazon rain forest they have found insects and small rodents encased in amber that could be thousands + years old. Curiously the ecosystem was exactly the same as it is today without a single change or modification.
I have a PH.D in Animal Science, believe me its a theory.
No matter how many times it is told to lay (Christian) folk it never registers. The word ‘theory’ used in general conversation has a much different meaning than a scientific theory. Think hypothesis (science usage)= theory (general English Usage). Theory (science usage) roughly equals Fact (general English). Scientist deal in degrees of certainty based on experiment, investigation and observation. Intelligent Design is not a theory (Science usage) it is a hypothesis.
Evolution is a Scientific theory which means it has passed the test and scrutiny of scientific investigation. Intelligent Design is a hypothesis, which means it has not passed the test of scientific scrutiny. It is not an alternative to Evolution as there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of the master designer!
evolution was proved wrong years ago it is just wrong with we evolved where did we come from and don’t say the big bang where did it come from nowhere if you go back really far you have to find God
If we can’t somehow exist on our own, without a god’s creation… then how did god come to be? Of course, you’ll just say something like “well, he just IS and always will be”.. basically taking the – I have no proof so this is my way out – approach.
A story can’t even go around an office without the facts being twisted and confused. So why do people believe something that was written thousands of years ago by people you never even knew? Seriously, if your own family members or best friend came to you and said an invisible man spoke to them, would you really believe them or would you think it’s time for them to be put in a padded room?
Not Really correct
A Theory means that for all the current technology the idea seems to be correct under the currect testable conditions or evidence at the time.
A Hypothesis is an educated guess based on some past events or knowledge. Anything can be a hypothesis, it does not mean it is correct.
A Theory really cannot be proven under the currect knowledge or technology. Einsteins theory of Relativity…we are pretty darn sure that it is correct, but it cannot be universally proven.
A law is something that is universally proven, ie. the Law of Gravity, Newton’s Laws, etc…
Scientific Theory is about as good as it gets for any ideas that we have, we have tons of evidence that points us in that direction but a Law is really the only thing that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt..
What about the question – Does this make me look fat?
You should read more carefully Travis. I said “Evolution is a Scientific theory which means it has passed the test and scrutiny of scientific investigation.” and your reply was, ” Not really.”
Further you state,” A Theory means that for all the current technology the idea seems to be correct under the currect testable conditions or evidence at the time.” And I said,”Scientist deal in degrees of certainty based on experiment, investigation and observation.” I guess you didn’t understand what ‘a degree of certainty is.’
Travis why did you bring up the definition of a law? Did I give a definition of a law in science? Let me reiterate and maybe you will read more carefully. Christian folks equate the definition of Scientific Theory with that of a Hypnosis (or confuse one for the other). Since my definition of Scientific Theory’ wasn’t incorrect, I have no idea why you state that I’m not quite correct. You are correct on expanding on my def. i.e. a theory is as good as it gets, but there are no points in which my def. contradicts yours.
Moreover there is no ‘proof’ or ABSOLUTE ‘truth’ in science. The closest we get are FACTS, which are indisputable observations from which laws are derived.However, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on evidence, then there is ‘proof’ in science. I don’t believe that in science to prove something means it can never be wrong.My main point, which you state as being incorrect is that hypothesis and theory are different and should not be used interchangeably i.e. calling Intelligent Design a Theory when it is in fact a Hypothesis. Also keep in mind the definition of PROOF can vary SLIGHTLY depending on your field of science.
very well constructed list, that i agree on.
but my issue is with gun control..
if guns kill people, then pencils make people stupid and spons make people obese.
Quite astute Olivia. Your reasoning is impeccable. People kill people and to say otherwise leads to absurdity upon absurdity! I will now sue Mc Donalds for making me fat. LOL The next time I cut myself while shaving, I will sue the Gillette Corp. And if my condom leaks, I will sue Trojan for child support! I can go on for those that disagree with Olivia. Dear Olivia you are one of the few sane ones left in a country slowly going mad!
ABORTIONS SHOULD BE BANNED IN EVERY COUNTRY and GOD does exist!
Why should they be banned? Isn’t everything already written in stone anyway? Won’t those poor little babies all go to heaven? You, and every other believer, should be thrilled beyond belief! No pain or suffering for a lifetime for them, only eternity in heaven! They got a free pass! Don’t worry about those women that choose abortion or the doctors that provide them. God will deal with them and sentence them to an eternity of fire and brimstone!
See how it all works out? Now turn off your computer and pray for all those little babies…
This comment has been edited.
Megan your powers of persuasion and reasoning acumen are truly the marvel of this blog. Further, God indeed exists, if only in your mind.
My opinions
Evolution – IMHO the other side of the debate is merely willful ignorance
Both nature and nurture play a large role in child development
For some security measures for allowing someone to buy a gun, but I’m against gun bans or any such things. People kill people. And extreme gun control will only keep law-abiding citizens unarmed
I support the right to die
Against the death penalty except in certain circumstances such as a criminal killing people from within the prison system
Abortion – I don’t like abortion but I’m leaning toward the pro-choice position
Free will isn’t so free but “fate” as in some metaphysical force is BS. Your will flows through and is thus guided and redirected that is the canal of genetics and personal experiences
I think morality is subjective with objective qualities
Egg came first
From most to least likely; atheism – deism – theism (general) – polytheism – monotheism
No mention of the biggest argument that can never be won… “Ginger or Mary Ann?”
Evolution vs Creation is obvious. Required name has it right. Only if you ignore logic, common sense and proven evidence does it then become a difficult argument.
Nature and nurture is a bit of both. It depends on the person though.
Gun Control is tough. it probably too late to strip guns from people in the US due to all the other people who own illegal guns. It’s not as bad in Australia where we’re not as gung ho.
Euthanasia – You should have the right to die. again an obvious one.
The death penalty – definitely. Mass murderers, rapist, child molesters etc. put a bullet in them so my taxes don’t go to their 40+ years rotting in prison.
Abortion. For it. For example, You would have to be a moron to allow a 13 year who has been raped to go trough with a pregnancy.
Freewill. Destiny is told about in stories and doesn’t exist.
Morals. depends. certain things aren’t right no matter what. ie child rape. Others are relative ie the multiple wives deal.
chicken or the egg. No one knows. Not worth arguing about.
Does god exist. If there is a god or god-like being in this universe it is nothing like any of them described in any religion on this planet. so for all intents and purposes, no. The idea of a God is simply stories created by ancient people to explain things, which has now evolved into the farce that it is today.
egg came first. it’s not chicken or the chicken egg.
Here’s one:
Prove that anything outside of your own mind actually exists. It’s impossible.
Everything you perceive [see, hear, smell, taste, touch] is nothing until your mind processes it. How do you know for sure it’s actually there then?
You’ll never lose this argument.
Besides you don’t have to listen to any other arguments, they’re not real either!!!
Hahahahaha!!
Matt, the ancient Greeks were way ahead of you. You’re only more than 2500 years late with your new (very old) philosophical discovery. It’s called Solipsism and the ancient Greeks were well aware of it and several variations on it. The great Socrates, teacher of Plato also mentioned it occasionally, so it would be safe to say it predated Socrates. It, Solipsism, has been around for a long, long time.
Wow I’ve never seen such a passionate response to a top ten list! The creation/evolution argument will never be won, but we’re obviously giving it a red hot go! How about this: They’re both right. We did evolve, but that’s the way God created us? I don’t think the Adam from dust and Eve from one his ribs story should be taken literally. God is obviously much more subtle than just clicking his fingers and making things happen.
RE:the chicken and the egg surely the egg must come first in the evolution of the chickens ancestor for it to become the chicken
such is the evolution of the species
Here’s the point Mike, there is a mountain of evidence supporting Evolution. There is an absence of credible, scientifically testable evidence to support the hypothesis of Intelligent Design. With that lacking, where is the evidence of a designer? Belief in God is an assertion of faith. Belief in Evolution is an assertion of scientific reasoning based on testable, quantifiable evidence not mythology, superstition and faith. Yes, this is precisely why this argument can never be won. One side draws its conclusions from logic, science and reason, the other from faith, superstition and ignorance. I will leave you with a quote by Martin Luther. (For you Christians that don’t know who Martin Luther was–look to the meaning of the word “ignorance” to define your faith.)
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. —Martin Luther
This is the second time the admin has censured my reply. I’m sorry did my pithy response and quote of historical figures injure your religious sense of decency. The intellectually challenged governing this blog will no doubt find my comments unpalatable. The truth cuts like a knife. Why keep up the facade of a blog dedicated toward free expression. Please remove me from your blog membership else do the right thing and post my comments unedited, as I have in no way used inappropriate language. It is my views you find inappropriate and that is something you should not censure. Or perhaps you wish to join the ranks of your peers, Hitler, Stalin, Saloth Sar, just to name a few. Keep up the good work. I’m sure they would smile and approve of your earnestness if they were still around.
NotoriousBigBrain,
We love pithy responses and I respect all opinions given on this site as long as they are given with respect. I am not intellectually challenged (although my Mom may disagree), but I do censure comments that are not written with respect to another commentor’s beliefs.
For example, I am a bit offended that you would compare me to Hitler, one of the most vile, evil people to ever live, yet I let your comment stand as is. If I edited it before I must have found it to be attacking another commentor. I stand behind my edits and hope you can appreciate my stance as the owner of the site.
Maybe you are referring to the comment you made earlier today. That was flagged by the spam software for some reason. I check the spam filter at night. I saw you comment had been caught, but that was by the spam filter, not me.
And finally, you prove my point. YOu can’t help but take a dig at those of Christian faith, but I’ll allow it because I’m assuming you are trying to be pithy. That is with a “th”.
To the Admin of this site, please accept my apology. It is now quite evident I had come to the wrong conclusion concerning your apparent censure of one of my comments. However my comparison of you to Hitler was not meant to be viewed in terms of his overall evil exploits on humanity but only the fine subset of his brutal repression of free speech and public dissent towards his policies and views.
Replying to the last paragraph of your declaration:”YOu [sic] can’t help but take a dig at those of Christian faith…” I respond, Christians tend to be an easier target on the Serengeti of the intellectual blogosphere. It is not that Muslims are generally better read and or educated than Christians (except perhaps in the comparative understanding of the Koran), they aren’t. It’s just that I don’t have to worry about a Christian tracking me down and committing holy Jihad to fulfill one of the many Fatwahs of the Ayatollah Khomeini or some other irate Imam. But fair is fair. I will leave you with a quote from the Supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz.
“The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished.”
–Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz
Muslim religious edict
Top 10 Arguments That Can’t Be Won
Which came first– A flat Muslim Earth or a flat Christian Earth?
Muslims and Christians feel free to resort to violence if necessary to resolve this question. Either Allah or Jesus can prove which side is right.
NotoriousBigBrain – It’s all good. Keep commenting, you keep us Christians on our toes.
God created the universe via big bang everything happened and was set into motion. When a suitable environment was created (earth) he made life via cells. cells evolutionized and made animals. Evolution has to exist or how would you describe adapting to your environment which IS a type of micro evolution! People did not come from monkeys but rather evolutionized with them we both had the same environment (Africa) that’ s why we are so similar but then we mutated (by the way, that can be a good thing and it does happen to DNA,). There has to be other life somewhere (what makes you think we are God’s only children?!)
ok the egg came first, at breakfast, the chicken came second, at lunch
now, the ultimate question for anyone who has seen eddie izzards act, CAKE OR DEATH?
Ummm if we evolved from monkeys how come monkeys r still around? Also, we clearly did not jump from the monkey in one leap, but the evidence for a half-monkey, half-human creature in the middle is still missing.
The chance of a series of genetic mutation so rare to have the first cells of life eventually evolve into us are so improbable that the theory of evolution still remains, as always, a theory. If we reached this way slowly over a series of a billion years, again, where is the half-monkey half-human? WHERE is the half-dinosuar half-chicken. There are too many missing links.
But it is also obvious that many species are very similar. However, that just suggests that they have one Creator who designed them in same but different ways- not, that they happened to mutate, or “evolve” into their forms.
I like this list
Evolution arguments are great.
In any case, to ally, evolution doesn’t mean that the “base species” so to speak becomes extinct. Extinction and evolution aren’t the same. Monkeys exist the same way a wolf and a dog co-exist. It’s called mutation of a gene/DNA, not extinction.
Ok, I get that, but I still don’t quite beleive we evolved from monkeys.
Although we share a LOT of the same DNA, there is still SO much different with our bodies and mind. It is very unlikely and extraordinary for us to evolve. We would have to have a series of mutations that would make them have less hair, different feet, legs, arms, hands, body shape, different eating habits, etc etc… there is soo much. To have ONE mutation is extraordinary. To have that mutation survive and result in more is next to impossible. Also, it’s not like any of those mutations from monkey to human would help him survive, so natural selection is out of the question for our case. Can you imagine a family of monkeys with less hair being beneficial and surviving? And we know that they didnt, because we haven’t found any fossils that show the “apeman”. “Lucy,” Neanderthals, etc were all early forms of human, not apemen. Scientists have proved that their mind, body, and early attempts of civilization make them human. Also, I haven’t heard of a genetic mutation that makes your instantly smarter. That would be awesome though.
“ally”, are you for real? Why not spend some time in school doing some research before you start making comments like “It is very unlikely and extraordinary for us to evolve.” I certainly hope you are a primary school student, then I can cut you some slack. But if you are an adult with internet access… You really need to learn to use a search engine and start learning about science. And just educate yourself in general. Go to the BBC and spend some time there. They have amassed a lot on evolution and Darwin. Subscribe to pod casts like The Naked Scientist. Read Science and Scientific American the magazines. Buy or download for free some of the hundred and thousands of Biology textbooks now available through Bit torrent sights like mininova. In this day and age there’s really no excuse for your kind of ignorance. Like I said, if you are under 18, I’m sorry and I’ll cut you some slack. But if you’re an adult, go to school, or go back to school or go to the library and learn to use search engines like google, bing, dogpile etc. They are wonderful tools for finding info. I should know, I’m an info addict.
here’s one for you… english theory VS scientific hyothesis
I have to admit, arguing about evolution vs. the Genesis approach is rather silly. The creationists fail to realize that the Genesis account fits perfectly with evolution if you ignore the “days” it took God to create it. And what is a day to God? And the evolutionists fail to see that evolution fits perfectly with Genesis if you ignore the claim that God created it. And isn’t it interested that the primitive people figured out the way things were created when they lacked so much scientific knowledge.
Basically, the argument isn’t so much evolution vs. creationism. It’s Religion vs. Science and there’s really room for both in this world.
Okay, so this whole monkey thing with evolution. Humans did not evolve from present day monkeys. Facts show that humans and chimpanzees and maybe orangutans share a common ancestor. The only place you’ll hear humans evolved from the monkeys we see today is in elementary school cause it’s too hard to explain to someone that age.
Chickens and eggs are two stages of the same animal,so which came first the caterpillar or the butterfly,the acorn or the tree,the baby or the adult.One cannot be without the other,therefore a redundant question.
It means on the first chicken was it a chicken or egg when it was born.
Editors Note: Sorry BigBrain, but name calling is strictly forbidden. I have edited that from your comments. We must always be polite, yes?
Karl Sundman you get the coveted (removed by editor) of the week award for lacking even the ability to understand the question. Oh I’m sorry that award has already been taken by “smarty” for his/her contribution,”It means on the first chicken was it a chicken or egg when it was born.[sic]” I guess you’ll just have to settle for, “Clueless of the week”.
And to the Admin. Please read their posts before you decide to censure my post. You will see they indeed are quite deserving of such honors. LOL
waht do you mean? i was explaining the question as simle as possable to him but a guess you are just to ignorent to understand my post. but i am cluless in a different sence, nobody ever has to give me clues before i figrue somthing out if that is whay you mean, btw brain size does not contibute to intelligence, so you just have a abnoraly large useless brain or a useless brain with a tumor, either way.
Smarty misspelling the word “ignorent” was a nice touch. If I am “ignorent” as you say and not ignorant, I believe I will find myself in good company. I certainly don’t know everything smarty, but sometimes I think I know far too much for my own good. As the saying goes, “Ignorance is bliss.”
There are many things I could say about your posts “smarty”. Let’s start with the one that reads,”It means on the first chicken was it a chicken or egg when it was born.” These are your words in response to another star poster, Karl Sundman . For starters “smarty”, chickens lay eggs that are hatched and are not born. With the exception of the Duck-billed Platypus all mammals are born living. “…on the first chicken was it a chicken…” You have stated the premise as “…on the first chicken.. ” are you now redefining that premise? I am not a Zoologist “smarty” however I’ve sat more than a few Zoology exams, and I know of no recorded instance of a chicken being born, for that matter, I know of no eggs being born either. As far as I know, eggs are laid and then hatched. But please educate me “smarty”. I am, after all, the “ignorent” one. In response to you dribble about brain size I will be happy to enlighten you in my next post. However I have a class to teach. Time flies when your having fun!
i know my spelling sucks!
and by born i meant the spark of exsitince. we say “when the unverse was born…” or other things like that to try to make it more simple for children or karl sundam, anyway im sorry for that earler i was just a little flustered because i finaly met someone as smart or maby smarter than me, im not trieng to sound stuck up, but 99% of the world is made up of not too intelligent peaple, btw what do you teach? im trieng to get into biophysics engeneering so i was hoping you might help. i hope to learn from you, and im still wodering what you mean by big brain.
I really enjoy these types of arguments, usually, because the spark of interest that everyone finds in their own theories I find absolutely facinating, I myself have my own “theories” about the subjects although never assume that I am right , because none of them can ever be proven beyond any reasonable doubt (I guess that’s why they’re entitled arguments that will never be won). Everyone who wishes to comment I believe has a valid oppinion to the best of his/her knowledge and own beliefs in either the suggested evidence towards evolution or the suggested evidence towards creation. I don’t however enjoy reading comments that turn into a battle of knowledge and theories, that ends up tearing other people down in the process (as I don’t believe that 99% of the world is made up of “not too intelligent” people. If anyone had the correct answer for these then they wouldn’t be unwinnable arguments. Everyone please remember that this is a way to take on board other people’s perspectives and either take some points on board or not, no one needs to be ridiculed for their own theories, technically their just as valid as yours in an unwinnable argument
Ok, think about it. 99% of people are not too intelligent at all. Sure everyone has thier own opinion, butmost of them dont think up thier own opion, they hear someone elses, and “Oh, thats sounds cool.” They cant think up thier own, think up somthing to back it up, or really dont think too much at all. If your still in primary school, really observe next time you go. How do people react to new ideas. And if people have gunien ideas, they dont know how to back it up, or wont even show it. People are spoiled. A few people, that think thier smart, do somthing and eveyone thinks it helps. But it ends uo killing us. A real intelligent pearson would of tought it trough. And these people you usally only find on t.v. They says intellegnc is a mix of oraganization and problom solving skills, well niether one is really contributing tro bieng smart. Thinking, just thinking is really all it takes. And nobody thinks enough anymore.
I was never with the intention to put down anyone with my comment which is why I don’t understand your “primary school” remark when clearly it is obvious that i am not in Primary School, so to even ask the question I assume was done out of spite. I still disagree with your statement: “Ok, think about it. 99% of people are not too intelligent at all”. Clearly you are judging the many by the few in the majority of your statements / opinions (as I doubt you would have met everyone on the planet, to have come to this conclusion). However i agree intelligence is a combination of different attributes combined together to solve a problem, see reason etc. So in regards to the perception of intelligence please tell me which of the following is intelligent:
a) A single 30 year old woman who dropped out of school in year 10, works three jobs, has 2 kids, yet manages to provide for her family and keep a roof over their head, with the occasional treat for herself and family or
b) A 29 year old man who has a steady full time job a long term partner who can recite dates, times, facts, quotes on any subject pretty much given to him, yet he has his power shut off every other week because he can’t pay his bills etc.
I only use this example because it is one I encountered in my work place and the latter of the 2 is an egotistical pain who also waffles on to me about his intelligence and how he looks down on the world as being less than he is because they are not smart….etc ….etc. Now in just my opinion; using what you have to better your situation is far more intelligent than handing out criticism (as that’s all he tends to do) to others. Knowledge is not intelligence and having intelligence and using it is 2 very different things.
Someone mentioned that, regarding the evo/creation thingy, they are both right…. I’d like to proposition the fact that they are both wrong. I say this based on the fact that this argument has been going on too long and arguing is by far and wide not very productive.
So…here is what i think, actually, the argument and the facts presented by these arguments are really our very social way of allowing ourselves to make our own decision about what is really real and really true, and discrediting both of these other views as 2 items that we should not cloud our mind/life with. In other words, these things aren’t important.
This holds true for all of these arguments listed. I think the young kids say it best when this type of stuff is brought up. “who cares” lets play.
you are wrong argueing is the way we come up with answers to are problems we fight entill we come up with a answer or get fedd up with argueing and go prove it
there is no such things as chickens so arguing on the basis of a creature that does not exist is..
SILLY.
Now go to bed.
hi, i have solve all the top 10 argument with an absolute answer with my knowledge.
I even manage to define what is intelligence and wisdom in their most elementary form and to categorized some of the aspect of it. the mapping of the realm of the knowledge is not complete but is on the way.
okay, one, EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BENN PROVED WRONG, just clarfing that, they found things like, “what about this, somthing should be here if you say that!”…they just havnt found it, and 2, MY THEORY STILL STAND, i bilive in dieism, and nobody hads ever proved that wrong…wait im sorry i bilive in an independent version of dieism, but still, noone even tries to prove it wrong, why? because its wright, im still open for more theorys, but so far this one ive ran acrose is very conpelling, and stands up the best, so…so far i9ts the most acurate
I’d say several of those arguments have been won. It is just that a small minority refuses to accept their defeat.
Your implication is similar to saying “Earth flat or round” is an winnable argument because there are still people that believe in a flat Earth. Just because some people disagree it doesn’t mean that the argument hasn’t been won.
Well stated “Buzzcook.” I had decided not to waste anymore time posting to this site. The vast majority of people aren’t interested in finding the truth on issues that are generally already answered by science. Regressing a step further, the majority (by the majority, I mean the American public in general, of other sets of population I can not speak definitively) are not interested in scientific knowledge and understanding. Among scientists and the science literati, evolution is not a debatable fact (some aspects of the mechanism of evolution are still not thoroughly understood. But that aside, evolution is a quantifiable fact supported by mountains of empirical evidence.
For those readers of this post who are truly interested in learning more about the evidence of evolution. I recommend highly Dr. Richard Dawkins,”The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution”. Dawkins studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen.
In addition I would also recommend,”The Evidence for Evolution,” by Dr. Jerry Coyne. Coyne was valedictorian of his class (1971) at the College of William & Mary and received a Ph.D. in Biology from Harvard University, an NIH postdoc in genetics at UC Davis, and a 1989 Guggenheim fellowship.
Buzzcook, in your statement, “I’d say several of those arguments have been won. It is just that a small minority refuses to accept their defeat.” I agree with the spirit of this statement, but not the implied numbers. Fully 60% of the American population does not believe in evolution. They are not guided by Scientific American or their biology teacher or science teachers in general, rather they take their guidance from the their pastor, Sunday-school teachers and the bible.
Therefore many of these so-called debatable topics can’t be won not because they (the topics) are beyond the power of sane and rational analysis and deliberation. The problems lie with the examiner. Religion, superstition and pseudoscience have skewed the reasoning faculties of many, leaving them beyond the power of rational judgment, reason and intelligent inquiry.
NBB, So good to have you back. You need to spread yourself across this site and start commenting elsewhere. Here is a list that was written with you in mind.
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-recent-signs-evolution-is-real.php
I would like to insert here that I am a follower of Christ (Christian) and every pastor I have had has believed in evolution and made sure they preached that Christianity and Science can live together and should. God wants us to ask questions and discover new things, otherwise why give us a brain and free will? It is man that seeks to hide the truth and keep ourselves blind. God is all about truth. I belive God created everything, so why wouldn’t he make us able to adapt to a world that is always changing.
TopTenz Master, thank you for your kind words. I confess I am more than a bit surprised to read that you are both a Christian and one who accepts evolution as being the primary means by which humanity has arrived on this planet. Those professing the Christian faith or any other religious faith for that matter, see evolution overwhelmingly as a falsehood, heresy and an anathema fabricated by the science community with the purported goal of casting doubt on the existence of their beloved deity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evolution makes no claim or disclaimer to the existence of deity(ies) in our known universe or multiverse as the case may be.
As for your statement,”…Christianity and Science can live together and should.” While it is true that Science and Christianity have co-existed for the better part of two millennia. It is not true that they have done so peacefully.
From the earliest burning of the Library of Alexandria (the greatest library of antiquity) by Christians, followed by the complete and successful razing of it and it’s sister library, the Temple of Serapis by the Muslim Caliph Omar in 640 CE (some historian believe by then however the Library at Serapis had already been razed and a church built in its place. Many attribute this to Theophilus a local church leader for destroying the last of the scrolls when he razed the Temple of Serapis prior to making it a church probably around 391 CE.) we can see religion”s enmity toward science.Even then we can see the values of Christianity. They could have chosen to build a church near the Library of Serapis, instead they chose to replace the library with a church. The future tyranny the Church would bring upon any scientist who would have the audacity to claim the earth was not flat or to claim, not by faith but observation, that the earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around well documented.
An interesting side note, some Christian historians have suggested the Library of Alexandria was actually burnt down by Pagans. Interesting in that both the head librarian, Hypatia, a female philosopher said to be fluent in more than a dozen languages, and the government of the Ptolemies, who built the libraries, were Pagan. (I never met a librarian who wouldn’t jump at the chance, and weep tears of joy at the thought of burning down her own library.)
Regarding your statement,”God wants us to ask questions and discover new things, otherwise why give us a brain and free will?” I can only view this as incredibly presumptuous. If there indeed is a god, and that’s a mighty big if, to presume to know it’s will is the height of folly and arrogance. If god or gods did exist, it’s, or their intelligence level would far exceed man’s by many orders, perhaps by an infinite number of orders that of our entire planet collectively. If there is a god and if still further, it is omniscient, that would seem preclude the idea of any kind of free will. Anyways, that’s a question for students of philosophy. I prefer to stick with observable, quantifiable facts. I’ll leave the rest for you religious folks.
Can Science and Religion co-exist peacefully? Sagan, Dawkins, Hichens, and slew of other science intellectuals say,”NO!” Unfortunately, I’m inclined to agree with them. I fervently hope we are wrong.
And FYI, based on what’s going on in Turkey and several other Muslim nations, I would say that currently Christianity ranks only no. 2 as greatest enemy to Science. The honor of no. 1 enemy of Science would have to go to Islam for the wonderful work they are doing in the public schools. Don’t fret though, give Christianity some time, I’m sure she’ll come up with something to trump Islam with, she always does.
Just to clarify, I believe evolution is happening, how can you deny it, but I believe God (without the hyphen) is the creator of the universe and all things within.
Hey, who is this “jeremy”? I like some of the things he’s writing, but he seems just a tad too militant even for my tastes. I differ from the highly esteemed Richard Dawkins. I think crossing the line from Agnosticism to Atheism is one that should be made with great humility. I’d hate be on the wrong side if there ever turned out to be a god pulling the strings of this cosmic puppet show. Aghast—what a thought.
To Tom S. Fox, the guy who made a comment that made him sound like an arrogant ass, if something cannot be proven to exist it can also not be proven to not exist. A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence, not a proof of nonexistence. If you want to say you don’t believe that there is a god, say that, don’t make an ass of yourself for all the world to see
Also to the other guy who says:
“Yeah, it’s just a theory.
Just like gravity.”
Umm, gravity is not a theory…its more or less a force. You will also notice that, as stated in the article, there are several theories that try to explain the effects of gravity, Newtonian Theory, Einsteinian Theory, and Quantum Theory. You will also notice that these three theories only work in three separate areas of physics. You can’t use Newtonian Physics to describe an Einsteinian phenomena.
And I must say all of the flack given for misspelling…why, you obviously get the point that is trying to be made. I have always felt that jumping on people for spelling is a bit of an asinine point. Like taking notes in class, professor may say Huygens and you spell it Hoygins, you aren’t wrong if you can say it aloud the right way. Phonetical spelling is just as good as correct spelling.
Also, its fun to see all of the arguments that spring up in the comments of an article pointing out the futility of arguing (if that makes sense).
“Ok, I get that, but I still donâ??t quite believe we evolved from monkeys.” – Ally.
Is “believe” the term you’re looking for? Are you sure you don’t mean “like the idea”? A lot of the time with religious folk, they have much trouble telling the difference between “X is desirable” and “X is true”. One of many incontestable points made by Richard Dawkins.
At least, I guess, some of the God Squad on this page can reconcile abortions, evolution, gays and the big bang with their own belief in a god. I acknowledge those people with a nod. For those of you that can’t, why does *your* god have to be such a gigantic jerk? (I’m looking at you, god of the old testament.)
“I belive God created everything, so why wouldn’t he make us able to adapt to a world that is always changing.” – TopTenz Master.
Can you not see the problem with this statement? It’s a dead end; a complete miss. Just a blase, generalising off-the-cuff religious anthem expressed because you can’t offer a genuine explanation – religion in a nutshell. Fortunately, there are people in the world who can offer proper explanations, and no, I don’t mean me. In any case, I’m looking at my computer screen right now, and that wasn’t made by god. It was made by a man. Don’t quote-mine this, or twist it so that it appears I’m alluding to a “creator”. I’m not. It’s just showing the weakness in the appallingly common statement “God created everything”. If your primary argument can be dispatched so easily, how strong really is your case?
Jeremy, we will never agree unless something happens in one of our lives (I hope that it is you) so I am not going to debate you as it would serve no purpose. But I think you missed the point of my post which was to build a bridge between the the two sides and show how both beliefs can be shared.
I believe God created the universe, the world, in essence, everything. Man has the ability to create as well, but without God there is nothing. You can attack this statement but in the end it is a matter of faith for me, which I have and wouldn’t want it any other way.
srry to ruin buzz right now A6M4 but yes gravity technicly is just a theroy, and to the top tenz master, before i adress youfor the first time, i gotta say, i love your work, that bieng said, i may have different biliefs from you, but dont listen to them bashing creationism, untill someone comes out with some evidence, were all wrong. fpr all we know the uneverse can just be a atom in some alternite world, and an atom in our world is another universe. conpletly unlikely, but we have nop proof aganst it. but by all means, everyone keep arguing, i love kicking back and reading these everyday, pretty entertaining, and it sucks that NBB cant stay here, i really liked him, someone with sence for once
Before I start I would like to ask that anybody who responds to my comment please don’t bash me. I just want to converse like a normal human being using sound logic. Let us start off by assuming that the Bible was written by humans and not by a divine origin. According to logic this would mean that Genesis is ridiculous from a scientific standpoint. Using this logic we have just cut away the first book of the Five Books of Moses. So far so good. In the middle of the Book of Exodus, the Bible clearly states that after being released from the bondage of Egypt, the Jewish people were led to Mount Sinai where they witnessed G-d come down on the mountain and speak to them face to face. The Bible gives an account of the nation at the time. The Bible states that there were 600,000 men between the ages of 20 and 60. This does not include women, children, or people over the age of 60. Assuming that half these men were married with at least one child, we are now up to 1,000,000 people. For the sake of the argument of the other side I will lower this estimate to 800,000 people. This is the only account in human history to make a claim as grandiose as this. If the “author(s)” wanted to start a religion and have many followers, they would not use such a fantastically large number. We can see from religions such as Christianity and Islam that each of these religions was only started by individuals as are all other religions on the planet. Can someone please explain to me how the Bible, if written by man, can make such a claim and get away with it. Furthermore, assuming that the Bible was written by man, one of the commandments that was given to the Jews was that they should farm their fields normally for six years. However, on the seventh year all farm work should stop completely and not be picked up until the seventh year is over. The bible also states that the fields will grow of their own accord so that the people will not go starving for that year. To make the question stronger, the Bible states that the year after every seven cycles of seven years will be the Jubilee. The Bible states again that Jews may not plant their fields for the entire year and that the food would grow of its own accord. Note that the Jubilee year is right after a seventh year. This means that the Jewish people were not able to plant their fields for a full two years, and yet the Bible says that the people should trust in G-d and their fields will grow by themselves. How could a human author possibly make such a wild claim that is against all logic? Who in their right minds would believe these authors? Again, sound logic only. Thank you very much for respecting this.
dan, most agriculturalists would agree to rest a field every seven years. It helps replenishes the land. Levitican law has one purpose and one purpose only: to separate the Jews from all others. It had to do with obedience to G-d.
There are two questions here. One, is there an omnipotent creator of the universe and two, is the Bible the true, unadulterated, to the letter word of that creator. The two are related, but different questions.
I agree that with you that most agriculturalists would agree to this, but when they say that they are usually talking to people who have more than one field. What has been established as a very common farming method is to use one field at a time and switch off every year so that the fields can replenish. However, the Bible says that ALL the fields in the land should be rested, not some. As I have stated before, there is no way for a human to write such a claim that the food will grow by itself. It just seems completely illogical for anybody who would want to start a religion to make such a claim. In response to your questions, I have put out the question of how human authors could get 950,000+ people to lie about their religious belief. In response to your second question, the version of the Bible that the Jews have until today is the pure unadulterated version that has been passed down from father to son since the revelation at Sinai. The widely popular King James Bible has many errors solely because so many things were lost in translation. You have to remember that the Bible was first translated into Latin, then into German I believe, as well as various other languages, and only then was it translated into English. Many verses are completely different than the original Hebrew in which the Jews received it. In fact, the Jews know exactly why this happened and what caused it. When the Bible was first translated into Latin, the Jews were under control of the Greeks. The Greek king Talmei ( I believe that is his name but I will check this up later to make sure) forced 72 of the greatest Biblical scholars of that generation to translate the Bible from Hebrew into Latin. He knew that if he kept them together then they would be able to consort and agree on how to translate it so that it would not offend the king. So he separated them and locked them in a small hut with food and water for about 40 days. When they were released the kings advisers reviewed the translations from the scholars and each one was EXACTLY the same, word for word. One thing they changed was that the word for one of the animals that is considered unkosher by the Bible happened to be the same word that was the name of the kings wife. Without being able to consort, each scholar changed this word to mean something else so as not to offend the king. I forgot all the details of the story but I will look this up later to remember it. Anyway, the point is that the Hebrew version is accurate until today, whereas the translated versions (which by the way are almost never translated from the original Hebrew) have many flaws because of this. I speak and read Hebrew fluently so I know exactly what the original Bible means. My previous comment was based on the original Hebrew version.
dan I can only assume your questions are proposed to be answered. I agree with LariLee about resting the field. It’s really strange all of the laws the Jews had and how a good number of them actually turned out to be beneficial (circumcision is probably most notable here). But if we go with logic here, where is the logic in questioning a practice that obviously did not heed the Jews from keeping themselves around for thousands of years. And also, logically, this seventh year rest and the Jubilee are not like a failed crop or a minimal harvest, they are not sudden and unexpected. Logically, if you knew every seven years you would begin to store food that could keep for a while.
Also to smarty, I am not questioning the theory of evolution, I was responding to a foolish response (Yeah evolutions just a theory, just like gravity) to a foolish statement (Evolution is just a theory). let me say it one more time. GRAVITY IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS A FORCE. you have theories of gravity that try to explain it, and all of them fail at some level. If that doesn’t affect you, I will say this to at least differentiate between evolution theory and gravitational theory: gravity can be quantified and observed second to second, evolution cannot.
In reality, saying evolution is just a theory doesn’t really change anything, as creationism is just as much a theory as evolution is. Neither one can be fully proved without doubt. Sure there have been many species who adapt quite noticeably, but since the theory has been proposed there hasn’t been a recorded instance of a species becoming a new species (let me again say that I do not think this impossible, also if you know of one tell me, that would be pretty awesome to look into). There have been no witnesses to either of these theories in action. Not that that would really change anything, we all know eyewitness testimony is one of the weakest forms of evidence, despite what the courts my tell you.
Perhaps you are right. However, so far nobody has been able to challenge my first claim of the 950,000+ people at Mount Sinai. I would really appreciate an answer to this. Even further, these same 950,000+ people witnessed a sea split open to accept them while they walked through on dry land, all the while being surrounded by walls of water. When they got to the other side the sea fell back on the Egyptians, killing them all. Also, the Bible explicitly states that for 40 years the nation was led through the desert by a pillar of clouds by day and a pillar of fire at night. As well as that, the Bible explicitly describes the Manna that fell from heaven every day for 40 years. It also states that it fell in double portions for the Sabbath since the people were not allowed to go into the field. This happened for 40 years, every day, for every member of the nation, which we established was somewhere close to a million people, if not more. It defies logic to say that they were all hoodwinked, or that human authors of the Bible managed to fool a million people for 40 years. Even if you say that they did somehow manage to fool all these people, what was the purpose of it all? Usually when people want to start a cult they have personal motivations. Yet if humans wrote the Bible, they would have to stick to all of the incredibly intricate laws themselves as well. Even if they somehow managed to not keep the laws themselves, they were left leading a large nation through the wilderness for much of their lives. What could possibly have been the motivation to want to start a religion based on that? It just does not make sense that the Bible was written by humans.
A6M$, your statements here are complete and utter nonsense. Please first familiarize yourself with the word “Theory”. Because it seems quite obvious from your posted comments that what ever little education you have received in your life up to now, it has not included even the most rudimentary training in the understanding of science, its process and its function. There are two definitions to the word “Theory,”(actually there are more than two, but for our purpose we need only concern ourselves with these two.) .
Theory
Def. 1 : A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
******************************************************************************************************
By this definition, evolution, or more precisely stated, “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by natural selection as an explanation for adaptation and speciation,” is indeed a scientific theory backed by hundreds of thousands of test results, experiments, and predictions substantiated by empirical evidence.
In your statement, and I quote,”…saying evolution is just a theory doesn’t really change anything, as creationism is just as much a theory as evolution is. Neither one can be fully proved without doubt,” you show in great clarity your utter lack of understanding of the word, “Theory” as used by Science and scientists. Creationism, or the more currently used term,”Intelligent Design,” here after referred to as “ID” , is a hypothesis without any test parameter. It, ID, is not a theory as in the above given definition. In all likelihood it will always remain a hypothesis because there are not known ways ( which satisfy the criteria for science. You can get high on quaaludes, as many of you young people appear to be, and tell me you’ve spoken with god, but sorry that isn’t science.) to test for the existence of an intelligent designer. So no Virginia, there is no Santa Claus and Intelligent Design is not a (scientific) theory!
*******************************************************************************************************
And the definition you are only familiar with pumpkin…
Theory
Def. 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.
*******************************************************************************************************
Indeed ID is a theory in the way you use the word, however it is not a scientific theory, merely a hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.
And without a testable parameter, a weak hypothesis at that !
Please don’t confuse your lack of awareness of the immense amount of research being done on the mechanism of evolution worldwide in a wide range of diverse fields of science for a lack of evidence. I believe the correct definition for your current state or condition is,”Ignorant” and, “ill-informed”. Please familiarize yourself with these and the above stated definitions before attempting to continue passing yourself off as having a competent understanding of science, its process and its function. Moreover, from what I have read of your above posted comments it appears you are also deficient in a proper understanding of syntax and semantics.
As my time is limited, I can only suggest that you spend more time in the library and take more science courses especially Physics and Biology. I suggest you search out all of my posted comments on this site. Unfortunately I have to deal with those ignorant and Ill-informed of science on a daily basis. However and just on occasion I will come across somebody who is well read and perhaps better informed than myself. On those rare occasions, I marvel in silence as like-minded individuals as yourself challenge them in their field or discipline of expertise with seemingly little or no competent working knowledge of the subject for which they speak.
For those readers of this post who are truly interested in learning more about the evidence of evolution. I recommend highly Dr. Richard Dawkins,”The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution”. Dawkins studied Zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen.
In addition I would also recommend,”The Evidence for Evolution,” by Dr. Jerry Coyne. Coyne was valedictorian of his class (1971) at the College of William & Mary and received a Ph.D. in Biology from Harvard University, an NIH postdoc in genetics at UC Davis, and a 1989 Guggenheim fellowship.
I forgot to mention in my previous comment that aside from all the events that took place after the exodus, there were also ten plagues which took almost a year to go through. How can human authors possibly fool anyone into believing that they witnessed a years worth of the most bizarre things that had never been seen before? In addition to this, I felt that I could present myself better if you, the reader gets a full scope of what a million people looks like. This is a photo of 100,000 people at an Obama rally: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×7507269
Note that the edges of the picture are cut off so its slightly more than this. This is only 100,000 people. Now multiply that by ten. Imagine trying to start a religion by lying to a million people and telling them that they personally took part in one of the most critical points in history and that they witnessed all of it with their own eyes. Then try telling them that they must live by a complex set of rules involving 613 commandments which limit their ability to live the way they want to live, for the rest of their lives for all their generations until the end of time. It is not physically possible to get away with such a lie. The Bible must have been written by a higher being.
If you’ve ever seen The Exodus Decoded, they suggest that a gigantic volcano explosion thousands of miles away caused all of the plagues. What amazes me is that Moses told everyone which was going to happen and when.
Let us say for arguments sake that it was a volcano. This must have been a really intelligent volcano because it knew exactly how long to create a plague so that each plague lasted for the same exact amount of time, each one succeeding the next. Wow, that is truly an impressive volcano, one that no scientist has ever seen before. The volcano even knew exactly who was a firstborn among the Egyptians!! Amazing!! The volcano must have been in cahoots with Moses and told him all about his plans so that Moses could warn the Jews before it happened. I apologize for being harsh, I honestly do not mean to mock you. It just sounds so ridiculous to believe something like that. Even if you could somehow believe it this still does not account for every other story that happened in the Bible. As I have said before its impossible to suggest that the Bible did not come from G-d. I think the real problem that people have believing is because they see G-d as an imaginary friend since science seems to contradict everything the Bible says. If you read the Bible as a Christian then I can see why this could be a problem. However, this is not the true way to interpret the Bible. When the Jews received the Bible at Mount Sinai, they also received the Oral Law which taught the Jews how to interpret each passage and their hidden meaning. The literal Bible is ridiculous. It’s like having a secret code without the key. For example: when the Bible says “an eye for an eye” it does not mean this at all. According to the Oral Law that G-d gave to the Jews it means that the person must pay the value of the person without his eye. This value is established by estimating how much this person could have earned as a servant and then subtracting how much he is worth without the eye, and then paying that difference. There are rules to reading the Bible which the Christians do not have. Of course its going to seem ridiculous if you read it literally! So when the Bible says that G-d created the world in 7 days, it has a much deeper meaning. The Bible talks about all that G-d created on the first day, and then it says “the first day”. How could there have been a 24 hour day as we know if there was no sun yet? Obviously it has a deeper meaning. Gerald Shcroeder is a nuclear physics professor who has also studied earth and planetary science. He wrote a book called The Science of G-d in which he reconciles the scientific record with the Bible according to its deeper understanding. Science has never provided conclusive evidence that G-d does not exist. Scientists have just mocked the Bible according to the way the world reads it because it seems so ridiculous that the world is only 5000 years old. The Jews have the key to the Bible so its ridiculous to accept any outside groups’ interpretation of it.
What is the point of hyphenating God?
Some believe the name of God is sacred. I believe Orthodox Jews for one will use the hyphen so they aren’t using the name in vain. Usually, in conversing with someone who feels that way, I will adopt the vowel-less G-d so they do not feel uncomfortable.
You seem a bit sarcastic in your reply. However, all of the plagues of Egypt could be explained naturally. What cannot be explained is how one man knew what was going to happen and when. That would be a miracle.
But, to play devil’s advocate… how do you know any of the Children of Israel needed to be fooled? One could simply write after the fact. 100 years later, one could write almost anything and can rely on group mentality. Do you know how many people claim to have seen Kennedy’s assassination? Quite a few more than were actually there. People pass along myth and rumor and will claim to be somewhere to have seen it happen. It’s also easy to manipulate the ones who were there to get them to agree that they all saw the same thing.
My personal take, not that I expect anyone to care, is that a divine force (G-d, if you prefer) created the universe. You can call that the big bang if you prefer. However, I don’t believe the bible is the literal word of G-d and is infallible.
I apologize for being sarcastic. You are right that it was uncalled for.
I agree with you that one could have written the Bible later and used group mentality to convince people that it was true. However, the Jews have a record of of who transmitted the Bible to whom, in which generation, from the current day all the way back to Moses himself. When could the author have fooled people about events that didn’t happen if there is a direct chain all the way back to Sinai? There has never been any record of the chain being broken. Each Jew receives his tradition from his father, who received it from his father before him all the way back. Lets say for arguments sake that a group of people was somehow fooled into believing that their ancestors had all these miracles happen to them. So there is this guy who is introducing a new way of life that all of these people have to agree to, to the point that they must give up their lives to protect it. I don’t know if you truly understand how deep and complex the laws of Judaism actually are. Aside from all the direct commandments that were written in the Bible, there is an incredibly vast collection of knowledge and commandments recorded in the Oral law. How could somebody possibly get people to agree to restricting themselves to such a difficult degree? Even if he could convince them, to what end? The Bible never makes any mention of Heaven or Hell, or any sort of afterlife. What did such an author have to offer? In fact, such an author would have to live by all the laws that he made, or else people would know he was lying. How could anybody possibly benefit?
I am sorry that I could not get a chance to watch Exodus Decoded. I know that I don’t have much of an argument against the documentary as I did not watch it, but I did review the Wikipedia page for it. The page brings all the criticism against the documentary. I leave the judgment of said criticism up to you, but you must admit that some good points are brought down. For instance, in your previous post you described how it could be explained that only the firstborn people died since they slept on a lower level which would explain how only they would be killed by a poisonous gas. However, this does not explain how all the firstborn livestock died. Also, while the documentary describes how water level could have dropped to the point that the Israelites could have walked across on a sandbar, the Bible clearly states that there were walls of water surrounding the path which the Israelites walked down.
Actually, the firstborn Egyptian usually had the best bed and best bedroom. The other children would usually sleep on the roof, under the stars, where it was cooler. Any poisonous gas would affect those sleeping closer to the ground. The Israelites, however, sat up and ate and talked and weren’t affected.
Watch The Exodus Decoded and see how miraculous it all was. The miracle wasn’t that the plagues happened. The miracle was that Moses knew what would happen beforehand and took steps to protect the Children of Israel.
Admin,
How do I add an Avatar to my posts?
FYI, for everyone – If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar here http://en.gravatar.com/
NBB!!! yay!!! your back!! Now can ya please yell at dan some, he is kinda….unintellectual? i really dont know how to desribe his comments, but if i was, i dont think there would be much good comments.
To Dan, please learn some stuff, or leave
To admin, Yes im the same way (i bilieve in god and evolution). But im alittle diffenrent insted of a god, I believe in a indepentdent form of diesm, wich looks for the answers to the unerverse in nature. I believe that electristy created life, in much the same way it created the big boom. well not so much as electricty, but a strong energy like it, very very similer, and that, that same electricity is still running trough our viens, or nerves and brain actually, but no less, i believe that this “energy” keeps us alive. And I also believe in evolution, but an altered version of it, i dont belive we came directly from ape, but more of we have one same ansecter, that evolvedwith different needs, into different spieces, much the same as goats evolve, one in the appalations is way diferent then one in the rockys, wich is differnt than one in the alps, wich is differnt than one in the himmaleas, wich is different than one in alabama, they all have differnt needs, so they evolved differntly, but they all have one, commen ansector. I bileve that all “races” of human are really different spieces, and that all primates and humans, came from one commen ancestor, and evolved diffenrtly.
To LariLee, welcome to this huge argument, and thank you for (trying to) helping (help) us with our Dan problome, but yopu too need to come woth more facts or a better argument, i am on my side, not evolution, not creatonism, so im not really in that big argument, but its still fun to wach everyone go at it.
To guests reading our messgaes, COMMENT! tell us what YOU think
Thank you for the kind welcome, smarty. However, I think Dan is making sense; he just needs to figure out what he’s arguing. Saying the Bible or Torah or Pentateuch is the literal word of G-d (or God, if you prefer) and arguing whether an Intelligent Being or God created the world or it was evolution are two totally different things.
I simply find amusement, and occasional enlightenment, in playing the devil’s advocate. And I find the same in the fact we’re all here, arguing about something that is already posted under “The Top Ten Arguments that Can’t be Won.”
As far as adding facts in my arguments, I don’t think there are any. It’s all opinion. Man evolved from ape? Show me the missing link. A Big Bang created the universe? What caused it? God made an intelligent, superior species? It sure isn’t humans, so what species was it?
It’s all conjecture. And any scientific fact is only yet unproven. After all, we laughed at the use of leeches medicinally hundreds of years ago, yet they’re being used today as medicine today in hospitals. Life is a learning process.
I shouldn’t post before I had more Diet Pepsi.
Evolution is not an opinion Larilee. Even without the fossil record, genetics, microbiology and host of other disciplines verify evolution independently. The missing link is such an old term that it is no wonder you still think evolution is an opinion. I have commented many times on this subject, many, many times. I have listed a couple of well known books ( among the science literate that is.) Let me state more clearly, evolution is a fact with literally hundreds of thousands of experiments with the results to validate it to a scientific certainty. Or to put in an other way you can understand. Among scientists, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is accepted as gospel truth. If you are not sure about the meaning of the word “theory” as used by scientists, please see my post to “A6M$”. It is about 10 posts above this one.
For those readers of this post who are truly interested in learning more about the evidence of evolution. I recommend highly Dr. Richard Dawkins,”The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution”. Dawkins studied Zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen.
In addition I would also recommend,”The Evidence for Evolution,” by Dr. Jerry Coyne. Coyne was valedictorian of his class (1971) at the College of William & Mary and received a Ph.D. in Biology from Harvard University, an NIH postdoc in genetics at UC Davis, and a 1989 Guggenheim fellowship.
Faith and religious belief are not subjects I like to dabble in smarty. There need be no rhyme nor reason for what a person believes in, if it’s a matter of faith. And that states it all. By the same token, if a person of faith says to me they believe in something because it has been verified by Science, my ears will immediately pop up. The bible is a book that by and large must be accepted by faith or completely dismissed as fairy tale and mythology. Science isn’t going to waste time on such questions as whether or not there was an individual named Moses who was given a set of laws by a supposed deity named, “I am who am.”
Let people have faith in whatever and wherever reason and sanity have failed them. If it’s beyond reason then it’s beyond me. But be a fore warned people of faith. Don’t trample on my science with your nonsense. I’m not going to drink a cup of hemlock and rollover and die like the great ” father of reason” Socrates did just to make your fanatical life easier. There are more scientist living now than have ever existed on this planet in the past. Someday we will out number the religious fanatics that now terrorize this planet. Someday soon we will hold elected offices. And when that day comes, we will live without terror, for sanity and reason will have been restored to its proper place.
Oh, NBB! You keep me young. I had to chuckle at your insistence that a world ruled by science would be some type of utopia. Yes, there have been atrocities committed in the name of God, but certainly science has many actions that scientists would prefer to have swept under than rug as well.
Look no further than the top 10 list from today: http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-weirdest-cia-programs.php and see what science was involved with. I’ll post the top 10 evil scientists list I have this week and we can all see specific examples of how science can be used for evil or misguided purposes just as easily as religion.
It all comes down to the humans using the tool, whether it be science or religion.
I admit the idea of a perfect Utopian society is a glorious one to consider. That humanity will reach that by turning to a scientific leadership made me giggle as well.
The only Utopian society that will ever exist will probably be the last two people alive on earth and will last less than sixty seconds.
I’ll agree in evolution up to the point that man evolved from apes. It’s obvious that everything evolves. However, there is a jump in the fossil record that makes it conjecture. Even if scientists agree it is the most probable explanation, there still lacks one bit of conclusive evidence. Show me the fossil record with no gaps and I’ll stop making jokes about monkeys’ uncles. Maybe. Or maybe I’ll start making them more.
If I catch a copy of the book you recommended, I’ll read it. However, your spirited “I won’t swallow hemlock!” declaration is a bit over-the-top. I personally enjoy the fact that science and religion do complement each other so well.
LariLee – I read your comments and think, “That is exactly my thought as well.” Now that should probably scare you a little…but I’m glad to know someone has similar opinions on this topic. Thanks for sharing, I’m always impressed.
Top Tenz Master wrote LariLee – I read your comments and think, “That is exactly my thought as well.” Now that should probably scare you a little…but I’m glad to know someone has similar opinions on this topic. Thanks for sharing, I’m always impressed.
Honey, that should scare you far more than it scares me. Cheers!
Please don’t forget Josef Mengele. Can’t you just imagine the type of Utopian society he’d be in charge of?
Whats wrong with Joesef Mengele?! I mean sure, he was mentally insain, cruel, but a visionary. Some of the things he disovered save way more lives then he took. Hes hated for his work, but someone had to do it, i respect him.
Smarty, please let me know which experimentation(s) that Mengele performed that saved more lives than he destroyed. I’d love to hear what valuable information he passed on.
Oh! and gravity, IS a theyroy, along woith evolution and creationism, none are facts, none totally proven, and yes, creationism is a theyroy,k its not oroven, thats why its called “faith” your supposed to believe without facts, or not at all
Attention:
smarty, if you really ever intend to pursue science as a profession, please read carefully this post I wrote to “A6M$” !
A6M$, your statements here are complete and utter nonsense. Please first familiarize yourself with the word “Theory”. Because it seems quite obvious from your posted comments that what ever little education you have received in your life up to now, it has not included even the most rudimentary training in the understanding of science, its process and its function. There are two definitions to the word “Theory,”(actually there are more than two, but for our purpose we need only concern ourselves with these two.) .
Theory
Def. 1 : A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
******************************************************************************************************
By this definition, evolution, or more precisely stated, “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by natural selection as an explanation for adaptation and speciation,” is indeed a scientific theory backed by hundreds of thousands of test results, experiments, and predictions substantiated by empirical evidence.
In your statement, and I quote,”…saying evolution is just a theory doesn’t really change anything, as creationism is just as much a theory as evolution is. Neither one can be fully proved without doubt,” you show in great clarity your utter lack of understanding of the word, “Theory” as used by Science and scientists. Creationism, or the more currently used term,”Intelligent Design,” here after referred to as “ID” , is a hypothesis without any test parameter. It, ID, is not a theory as in the above given definition. In all likelihood it will always remain a hypothesis because there are not known ways ( which satisfy the criteria for science. You can get high on quaaludes, as many of you young people appear to be, and tell me you’ve spoken with god, but sorry that isn’t science.) to test for the existence of an intelligent designer. So no Virginia, there is no Santa Claus and Intelligent Design is not a (scientific) theory!
*******************************************************************************************************
And the definition you are only familiar with pumpkin…
Theory
Def. 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.
*******************************************************************************************************
Indeed ID is a theory in the way you use the word, however it is not a scientific theory, merely a hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.
And without a testable parameter, a weak hypothesis at that !
Please don’t confuse your lack of awareness of the immense amount of research being done on the mechanism of evolution worldwide in a wide range of diverse fields of science for a lack of evidence. I believe the correct definition for your current state or condition is,”Ignorant” and, “ill-informed”. Please familiarize yourself with these and the above stated definitions before attempting to continue passing yourself off as having a competent understanding of science, its process and its function. Moreover, from what I have read of your above posted comments it appears you are also deficient in a proper understanding of syntax and semantics.
As my time is limited, I can only suggest that you spend more time in the library and take more science courses especially Physics and Biology. I suggest you search out all of my posted comments on this site. Unfortunately I have to deal with those ignorant and Ill-informed of science on a daily basis. However and just on occasion I will come across somebody who is well read and perhaps better informed than myself. On those rare occasions, I marvel in silence as like-minded individuals as yourself challenge them in their field or discipline of expertise with seemingly little or no competent working knowledge of the subject for which they speak.
For those readers of this post who are truly interested in learning more about the evidence of evolution. I recommend highly Dr. Richard Dawkins,”The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution”. Dawkins studied Zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen.
In addition I would also recommend,”The Evidence for Evolution,” by Dr. Jerry Coyne. Coyne was valedictorian of his class (1971) at the College of William & Mary and received a Ph.D. in Biology from Harvard University, an NIH postdoc in genetics at UC Davis, and a 1989 Guggenheim fellowship.
See NBB, thats why everyone loves you, after reading your comments i have to just sit and stare at what you have just said in utter amazment. You can tell exactly what you want to say and say it, with just about as much facts, evidece, and anything to prove it as you can possable fit, and your intellagence is amazing, but i have to say, a wold, or “utopia” as toptenzmaster put it, of scientist, wouldnt really be all that grand. When there is a huge catastrophe, its easer to look up to a god, as fake or real as he might be, then to acsept facts and know noones up there to protect us. God is like a pasifier for humanity, and without him, the herds of ignorent people that fill our earth to the brim, will have there world turned uosidedown. With all the terrible events on earth, the people that cant stand them, turn to someone that can help them, and just believeing in him can help them, (and yes i say “him” because when the religon started anyone inportant was a “him”. ) without that help we will have riots over the littlist things, and mad people running in the steets. So untill everyone can understandthe perdicamet humanity is constitly at, ill keep religon in humanity.
btw, im going into biophysics yes, but more of studing the nevose system, not theyroys and hypothoses, but im sure i can use it somewhere, so thanks.
He praciticlyy invited abortions, or atleast good way to do it, an he did the same for mulitple surgeries. He proved labotomes did no good to a patent, and descovered many secrets of our body, and things you can do with it. All of the thigs he disocvered directly killed hundreds, but the information saved thousands more on the orperting table.
I’m sorry, smarty, but you’ve been misinformed. Mengele did not invent nor perfect abortion. Abortions are mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath (as something doctors should not do). He did, however, perform abortions on the girlfriends of German soldiers and the female prisoners used in the soldiers’ whorehouse.
As far as the rest of your claims… Mengele’s research was never released en masse during the war to German physicians. And it will never be released en masse to the general public. Most of his research was destroyed (by Germans trying to hide the scope of his — and their — crimes). So it’s unlikely that any of his research saved “thousands of lives.” No one will ever duplicate his work as that type of study on humans is forbidden by any ethical scientist/physician. The majority of his research seems to have been spent on changing appearances (eye color, skin color) or on the physical and psychic connection of twins or on autopsies. Nothing that changed lives for the better.
Finally, lobotomies did not fall out of favor until the late 50s/early 60s and are still in use for some diagnoses. Admittedly, it’s rarely used, but it is still used.
Were these the best examples you could come up with?
TopTenz Master and Larilee,
Dr. Mengele certainly had the credentials and the knowledge necessary to perform scientific (medical research). The question is–is that what he did? I don’t believe any scientist now or in the ’40s would consider his research to be Science. Though I am still doing research on Mengele’s experiments. Up to now, I have found none that would have been of any interest to the science community in the 40’s.
Below is a quote by one who observed Dr. Mengele’s research first hand.
Auschwitz prisoner Alex Dekel has said: “I have never accepted the fact that Mengele himself believed he was doing serious work — not from the slipshod way he went about it. He was only exercising his power. Mengele ran a butcher shop — major surgeries were performed without anesthesia. Once, I witnessed a stomach operation — Mengele was removing pieces from the stomach, but without any anesthetic. Another time, it was a heart that was removed, again, without anesthesia. It was horrifying. Mengele was a doctor who became mad because of the power he was given. Nobody ever questioned him — why did this one die? Why did that one perish? The patients did not count. He professed to do what he did in the name of science, but it was a madness on his part”
I place heavy emphasis on this first hand account. If Dr. Mengele had drugs available for anesthetizing the subjects of his experiments, but purposely chose not to use them, he would have to justify to any in the science community interested in the purpose and outcome of his (gruesome) experiments, how deliberately sending his subject into a state of shock would be conducive to promoting an outcome less likely to be tainted than by using anesthesia. Even in the ’40s physical trauma was known to lead to shock or circulatory collapse, if not yet a well understood medical phenomenon.
Dr. Mengele had to have known that performing surgery on an unanesthetized subject would most likely lead to rapid death due to shock. Thus I contend that although Dr. Mengele possessed the credentials and in all likelihood the knowledge and ability to produce scientifically competent research, it is unlikely that any of his experiments were Science worthy. (science fiction fitting for a SAW movie sequel, but not Science worthy.)
Reluctantly, I will admit that Dr. Mengele credentials alone merit him the esteemed title of scientist, but none of his experiments as far as I can tell were science worthy even by the standards of his time. It is more likely that even Dr. Frankenstein’s research would have been more science worthy in Mary Shelly’s day than Dr. Mengele’s.
Toptenz Master,
I certainly hope Dr. Mengele isn’t the best you can up with for rogue scientists with a vent on harming humanity.
I’m sure you can come up with more on your own. I’m off to create the next list.
fine you win
Do I get a little trophy or something?
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centures since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
– Isaac Asimov, Canadian Atheists Newsletter, 1994
“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”
~Albert Einstein
Your quote is often taken out of context LariLee. I have added some extra context so that reader can better understand Einstein’s beliefs.
This is what Albert Einstein wrote in his letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, in response to his receiving the book “Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt”. The letter was written on January 3, 1954, in German, and explains Einstein’s personal beliefs regarding religion and the Jewish people; it was put on sale one year later and remained into a personal collection ever since. Now the letter is again on auction in London and has a starting price of 8,000 sterling pounds.
The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a religious person – in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a “childish superstition”. “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this”, Einstein wrote.
Einstein was Jewish, which is why the people of Israel asked him once to become Israel’s second president. Also, Einstein felt uncomfortable with the idea that the Jews are God’s favored People.
“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise, I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them”, said Einstein.
Although, neither Einstein nor his parents were religious people, he did in fact attend the Catholic primary school. But at the age of 12 he was already questioning the truth of the stories written in the Bible. “The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression”, Einstein wrote.
Einstein may have not believed in God, but he felt that faith was a must. This is probably why he never gave a second thought to studying the quantum theory and its random nature. He once said that “God does not throw dice”, meaning that quantum theory randomness is out of the question for him. This belief in faith is probably also why his position towards religion was often misinterpreted.
“Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him. It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions… but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion”, said John Brook from the Oxford University, leading expert on Albert Einstein.
Einstein was often associated with atheism because of his views on conventional religion, but he never liked being called an atheist.
I was tweaking you a bit with that quote, NotoriousBigBrain. In my opinion, I think we’ve yet to find the absolute truth on God or evolution. But, bless you, you come off as totally intolerant of anyone else’s opinion and expect everyone to be familiar with your references, that I have the urge to proselytize, bang a tambourine while calling the angels for blessings on your head. It’s the same feeling when dealing with a religious zealot, except then I point out inconsistencies in the Bible, speak of scientific discoveries and offer to sacrifice small barnyard animals to Baal.
I’ll admit, I enjoy researching some of the items you’ve pointed out. Yet this is an argument that cannot be won, even if you routinely point out that you’re so much more intelligent than those who you are arguing with.
I have a question?
If man creates robots with A.I. (artificial Intelligence) Does that not make us “God” to them (the robots)?
There is no “proof” of YHWH elohim creating all that exists in six 24-hour days, about 6140 years ago. We Biblical Christians accept it on faith, based on the first-Person testimony of the only Person who was there to witness it all.
But here are several disproofs of evolution.
1. The Cambrian Explosion.
2. Interspecies (“between kinds”) specimens, which would be evidence of a process of change from one species to another, are generally absent from the fossil record.
3. Irreducible complexity. Consider a mousetrap with its five component parts. It cannot evolve from one part to two parts to… five parts. Either it originates as a complete functional unit, or any predecessor would be totally nonfunctional and unfit for natural selection.
Consider an eye, the human eye, or any animal’s eye. It is so complex that man cannot duplicate its versatility, accuracy, and detail, yet any previous version with any part missing.would be totally nonfunctional and unfit for natural selection.
Consider a cell, a single cell amoeba, or any living cell. Evolution might have passed muster when we were ignorant of the inner workings of cells. But with increasing knowledge comes increasing responsibility. Knowing the elegant processes and machines that operate inside even a simple cell, without which it would not be alive, to assert that it came to be from some lower life form is naive, intellectually irresponsible, and an insult to those who know better (by faith in God and His word).
4. The mystery of life. With all of man’s elaborate laboratory equipment and the experimental extremes of electricity and magnetism, gravity and centrifugal force, heat and humidity, and atmospheric composition, man has never created life from non-living substances. He has never even observed it happening, anywhere in the universe.
5. “The appearance of age” and the observed increases in red shift in spectra of stars during the past 60 years. The Doppler Effect cannot account for increasing recessional velocities of stars in a universe which is represented by the “F=m?a” Newtonian mechanics which astronomers have universally observed, so far. On the other hand, the general theory of relativity does account for such increases in red shift, by attributing them to increasing gravitational forces in stars as they gradually collapse and become increasingly dense. This eliminates the so-called “evidence” of an expanding universe of stars at distances of up to 72,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles, arrival at which would have required some 13 or 15 or however many billions of earth years after a Big Bang.
Without those billions of years, “evolution of the species by chance mutation and natural selection” could not have happened. Anyone who brings up C-14 and polonium decay can expect a debunking there as well, just not from this party. Simply understand that God created carbon in whatever form and quantity He chose, and He created that carbon in whatever original ratio of C-12 to C-14 He chose, as well.
6. The statistical record of chance mutations indicates that mutating specimens nearly always devolve, debase their DNA information, and lose their self-preserving ability to survive, rather than the reverse. That is why there are so many more people with mental, emotional, and physical handicaps than there are individuals harnessing nuclear fusion for an energy source, or making peace between Mus|ims and their sworn enemies, the “infidel” Christians and Jews.
7. Evolution would require DNA information to increase and become better organized. Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, that energy tends to spread out from local concentrations to being dispersed. The second law stipulates that closed systems tend to disorder rather than to organization; that the available energy in a closed system becomes less and less available; and that entropy, or dispersal of energy, constantly increases across the totality of a closed system.
But God transcends any closed system.
A group of agnostic scientists decided that God was getting in the way of progress, and His services were no longer required. So they sent a representative to the Almighty, who stated their case thusly:
“God, we greatly appreciate all you have done for us, creating humankind by whatever process you used. And that part about giving your only begotten son as a sacrifice for our sins was just totally awesome, beyond human imagination. We are so grateful for the historical record you gave us in your book, at least the part after those first eleven chapters – you know, the myths and fables?
“But we have progressed and evolved in knowledge to the point where we can take it from here. So how about you just bug off, OK?”
To which the Creator and Sustainer of the universe replied with deep compassion:
“Before you go condemning yourselves to a Christ-less eternity apart from the Giver of all good gifts, I will need to see some evidence that you are really capable of maintaining at least your own tiny blue planet, for whatever time there is left. I created your kind from clay and My own breath of life. Can you do the same?”
The representative scientist hesitated and stammered, “W-w-w-well, w-w-we’ve been trying to do that. Let me give it a try here with You helping,” and he reached down and scooped up a handful of dirt.
“Oh, no!” the Creator said. “You get your own dirt.”
Scientifically speaking, within a universe diagrammed by Newtonian mechanics, the first law of thermodynamics states that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Only the Creator God, who transcends time and space, mass and energy, could have created all that exists ex nihilo. When Christians get to the throne of grace, some of us will ask the Lord Jesus how He made, from that which did not exist, everything which was made.
When agnostic evolutionists get to wherever they’re going after this life, some of them will ask the author of the theory of evolution how he deceived so many people, to their own destruction. But then it will be too late. “It is appointed to man once to die, and after that, the judgment.”
Ok, I think I understand what you’re saying and this is – “I don’t have an explanation for anything so I’m taking the easy way out and saying the invisible man just did it all”.
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Complete and utter nonsense!
Why not learn from scientists about Science (and in particular Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection) instead of passing your misinformation on to the public.. Your form of religious condemnation of those who find it difficult to stomach your brand of ignorance, is laughable at best and just repugnant and disgusting in general. Who cares what you think your imaginary god is going to do to any person who doesn’t follow you line of insanity. There is no rhyme or reason to you set of beliefs. Why should people who follow the conviction of scientific inquiry care whether it contradicts you or your religious beliefs?
As I read through your post, I see that you are fond of passing judgment and damnation on to those who don’t ascribe to your narrow set of beliefs. And as I grow older and wiser (lol) it becomes more and more apparent, religion and science can not co-exist peaceably. Really the greatest threat to science is individuals like yourself. Those who feign the pretense of scientific knowledge without the substance.
Chicken or egg- I eat the egg for breakfast, the chicken for lunch.
Gun control- the ability to hit the target in the same general area consistantly
Conservative approach says that if you do not like guns, don’t buy them or own them. Liberal approach says if they dont like them, then NO ONE should have them.)
God- why not? and are we the only ones in this (or any other) universe , either with or without intelligence?
Euthanasia- It is ok for pets, why not humans, also?
Death penalty- In the end, it really matters only to the one who is to be executed.
Abortion- see death penalty
Evolution vs Creation- they can and do co-exist
Nature/Nuture- see Evolution
Free will/Destiny-Who cares, as long as others’ rights are not infringed?
Morals- see free will
It was the chicken who came first!
YHWH elohim (the Lord God) created me and my kind.
If monkeys created you, you have my sincerest heartfelt sympathy and prayers for your adoption into God’s family.
Decent list. I agree that most of these can’t arguments can’t really be won except for evolution vs creation. The two can co-exist depending if you take the bible as a figurative text rather then a literal text so in most cases they don’t need to be argued. In any event evolution is a proven fact so any argument regarding its validity is pointless.
A puzzle for all you Creation-deniers:
If the universe is irrational, then from that chaos, rationality and order have evolved, and disorder has decreased, contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So let us assume a “rational universe” where the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics hold true.
The Big Bang Theory states that the universe exploded either ex nihilo, or from a pre-existing black hole or other concentration of mass and energy.
1. “Everything exploded from nothing” contradicts Newton’s first law, that mass-energy can be neither created nor destroyed. That requires a Creator Who transcends the universe, Who has made Himself known as YHWH elohim in Genesis 1, and more specifically as the Logos, God the Son, in John 1.
2. “Everything exploded from pre-existing mass and energy” requires either
a) a transcendent Creator to create the “pre-existing mass and energy” (see #1), or
b) an infinite regression of prior cycles of “Big Bang, expanding universe, collapsing universe, concentration of mass and energy.”
“Infinite regression of cycles of Big Bang and collapse” means that the universe has been “running down” for an infinite extent of time. (For an almost infinite extent of time: see #1.) The second law of thermodynamics, that energy tends to spread out from local concentrations to being dispersed, requires that available energy decreases over time. Over an infinite extent of time, available energy decreases to nil. However, available energy is NOT nil, so the universe is NOT cycling in an infinite extent of time (see #1).
The above argument disproves the possible alternatives to transcendent creation. But the existence of the Creator cannot be proved, “for he who comes to God must BELIEVE that He is” (Hebrews 11:6).
The laws of physics, thermodynamics, and all other disciplines and sciences came into being AFTER the Big Bang, in the first second. Ask any qualified researcher, don’t just post. And “faith” is unprovable. Prove that I am not a God in disguise.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
Come on!! The chicken OBVIOUSLY came first!
I didn’t have time to read everything because it’s a lot of the same thing over and over again, but just remember, the people who wrote the bible thought the world was flat!
How interesting reading everyones opinions and beliefs. How amazing humans are that we can think about creation of life and existence in such ways!
As a non believer of any religion I wouldnt want to argue about if God or a Creator exsists? However as a person who has worked alongside people in emotional distress who DO believe, I have come to realise the strength that faith can give people! I have seen people face their death at peace simply because they believe. …The most precious thing that can happen to them is about to end, and yet they are at peace. How beautiful is that! How powerful is that!!
Whether God actually exists seems irrelivent if the act of believing brings happiness to a person? Surely, God is only relevant to the person who believes in Him? I dont belive in God, I dont recognise the power of religion, it gives me no strength and no direction. Therefore it is not relevent to me or my life? That doesnt mean I cant apreciate that the next person may exsist because of their God? I exsist because my mother and father reproduced. My friend exsists because his God created him. The fact that we exsist and are friends who care and have each other is all that really matters. “Whatever is at the center of our life will be the source of our security, guidance, wisdom, and power.” ~ Stephen Covely
I am amazed by the different theories such as the Big Bang and Evolution. I believe the questions of the Universe are endless and exactly why/how we are here are something we will always be trying to answer and never will hold ALL the answers, but how amazing that we are trying anyway!!!!!
The fact we humans strive to find answers, that we want to know how things work and why they dont? why the dinosaurs died out? how long the sun will burn for? does God exsist? did Evolution happen? all these questions point to us trying to make sense of WHY WE EXSIST? Why are WE important to this Universe we exist in? Would it REALLY matter if we were not here??? Is there some part of us, some hidden insecurity within us that can only feel safe in answers and evidence? Why else would it be so important?
I do believe that each and every one of us has something to contribute to exsistence on this planet and it has nothing to do with arguments of ‘God’ or how we ‘evolved’. Each and every person, animal, plant, cell… has an individual and unique affect on life. This world simply WOULD NOT be the same in some way if you did not exsist. The world would always be missing something precious and unique….something very important……YOU!!!
I believe it doesnt really matter why or how we have come to exsist? The important thing is that we do and we are! We have an amazing gift of life to apreciate no matter how we choose to live it or what we choose to believe.
We’re all winning sperms, how amazing are we????!! Congratulations everyone!!!!
Kim
“A life – one little gleam of time between two eternities” -Thomas Carlyle
Bravo Toptenz !!!
I just stumbled across your new list, (well, it’s new to me)” Top ten recent signs evolution is real”. I’m both surprised and impressed. I haven’t been to this site in a while and you spring this on me. How the world turns, indeed ! Keep up the good work!!!
Best wishes
NBB
pfft, this should have been titled “several arguments that have already been settled for decades, mis-characterized to make the arguments seem viable”.
the evolution/creationism debate was settled over 150 years ago. if you wanna say “god did it”, fine, but dont try to dictate that how it happened/currently works is compatible with your bronze age creation myth. and dont get hung up about “dont call me a monkey” or whatever, youve always been a monkey just the the cowardly lion always had a heart.
nature vs nurture? why the false dichotomy? they both have an effect.
gun control- what makes people peaceful? the knowledge that attacking a random person on the street might lead to a gun in their face. yeah sure, its good to have a society where everyone isnt a criminal just because they know its wrong, but optimism isnt ironclad.
euthanasia- you can put it in your will that if you’re braindead your family ought to have the plug pulled, nice and easy. put it in your will today, sure beats soaking your family for hundreds of thousands of dollars as you rot away for years.
death penalty is no deterrent it seems, but its a whole lot cheaper than warehousing people for life.
low blow with the abortion cartoon, NO ONE says life starts at birth. the standards we have in place are fine.
free will and destiny are both phony concepts, you do your best and what happens happens. you arnt entitled nor are you autonomous.
morals are relative, not to the individual, but to society- what does harm? bam, wasnt that easy.
chicken or the egg? easy, the egg. theres never been a chicken that didnt start out as an egg.
does god exist? lack of proof for IS evidence against. checkmate, wasnt that simple?
it must be nice to be so positive about things….even though you are not necessarily correct in all cases and are totally wrong in a couple areas.
“Abortion vs Pro-life”, “Evolution or Creation?”, “Gun control” and “Death Sentence”. None of these are really debated in Norway. No death sentence is dealed, guns are for shooting range or hunting only (and maybe as a result of this, people are not being shot all the time), creation is widely regarded as a metaphor by the religious part of the population (and evolution is taught in all public schools – special religious schools, though, are allowed to teach both theories), and lastly one can have an abortion by choice if bearing is harmful to the mother, or if she chooses it before the fetus has reached a certain stage. Very few people disagree with any of these issues.
Smarty, I would like to hear what you think are his contributions to society that were positive. Otherwise it seems you may be trying to incite other readers.